DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/8/24 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/8/24. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.04(II) states in relevant part:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
…
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10.
…
Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Independent claim 9 recites a method. In accordance with MPEP § 2111.04(II), conditional limitations within method claims will be treated as not being required to be performed under the BRI.
As per independent claim 9, the fourth limitation recites (with emphasis added), “establishing, when the distance between the first and the second flying aircraft is less than 1000 meters, a communication link between the communication nodes of the first and second flying aircraft.” The examiner notes that the limitation itself begins with the term “when,” which Merriam-Webster (see citation on PTO-892) defines as a conjunctive “if” (see conjunction definition #2). Therefore, the examiner considers the BRI of independent claim 9 to include a scenario where the establishing limitation is not performed.
Dependent claims 10-12 additionally cite conditional limitations (see in particular, “when” conditions). Notably, these limitations do not complete a closed set of alternatives with the conditional limitation of claim 9. Therefore, the BRI of these claims does not include that the recited functions must be performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0129934) in view of Stein et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0250084, cited on IDS dated 3/8/24).
As per claim 1, Li et al. teach a communication system for secure communication between a first flying aircraft and a second flying aircraft [Li, ¶ 0073, “FIG. 5 is a diagram 500 illustrating example air-to-air (A2A) sidelink communications. In NR, a sidelink based relay or repeater may help to relax the base station transmit power specification, and may help to maintain the UEs' throughput at the cell-edge. The A2A sidelink communications may also be associated with additional benefits”, Fig. 5 shows an air-to-air (A2A) communication system between flying aircraft using sidelink communications. Conceptually, this is supported by D2D communications (see ¶ 0040).], the communication system comprising:
a first communication node and a first processing unit [Li, ¶ 0143, “The apparatus 1902 is a first (transmitting) UE and includes a cellular baseband processor 1904 (also referred to as a modem) coupled to a cellular RF transceiver 1922”, Fig. 19 shows a hardware implementation for a UE (see fig. 1, element 104) in a 3D ranging system for ATA (air to air) communications. The hardware implementation includes a transceiver (or communication node, see element 1922) and a processor (see element 1904). UE 104 (see fig. 1) includes aircraft, with direct link (or sidelink) communications. The 3D range component is used to determine if the other UE (or aircraft) is within sidelink range (see also ¶ 0051). The other UE is configured to provide a response, if within range (see fig. 14, steps 1406-1418 and ¶s 0100-0105).] provided in the first flying aircraft [Li, ¶ 0073, “Accordingly, sidelink relays or repeaters may be utilized (over a PC5 interface) for coverage extension. In a congested airspace, different aircraft may be layered in different flight levels (FLs). Adjacent FLs may be approximately 1000 feet (ft) (or 0.6 km) apart in altitude. An FL may correspond to an altitude, an altitude range, an altitude set, or a height of flight, etc. Accordingly, sidelink-based multicast may be utilized to improve reliability and throughput. In addition, cooperative sidelink-based unicast with UE cooperation may help to increase spatial diversity”, Sidelink communications between aircraft (see fig. 5) may be based on horizontal (distance, up to 10 km, see rest of ¶ 0073) and/or between vertical flight levels (FLs) which are ~0.6km).],
a second communication node and a second processing unit [Li, ¶ 0143, “The apparatus 1902 is a first (transmitting) UE and includes a cellular baseband processor 1904 (also referred to as a modem) coupled to a cellular RF transceiver 1922”, Fig. 19 shows a hardware implementation for a UE (see fig. 1, element 104) in a 3D ranging system for ATA (air to air) communications. The hardware implementation includes a transceiver (or communication node, see element 1922) and a processor (see element 1904). UE 104 (see fig. 1) includes aircraft, with direct link (or sidelink) communications. The 3D range component is used to determine if the other UE (or aircraft) is within sidelink range (see also ¶ 0051). The other UE is configured to provide a response, if within range (see fig. 14, steps 1406-1418 and ¶s 0100-0105).] provided in the second flying aircraft [Li, ¶ 0073, “Accordingly, sidelink relays or repeaters may be utilized (over a PC5 interface) for coverage extension. In a congested airspace, different aircraft may be layered in different flight levels (FLs). Adjacent FLs may be approximately 1000 feet (ft) (or 0.6 km) apart in altitude. An FL may correspond to an altitude, an altitude range, an altitude set, or a height of flight, etc. Accordingly, sidelink-based multicast may be utilized to improve reliability and throughput. In addition, cooperative sidelink-based unicast with UE cooperation may help to increase spatial diversity”, Sidelink communications between aircraft (see fig. 5) may be based on horizontal (distance, up to 10 km, see rest of ¶ 0073) and/or between vertical flight levels (FLs) which are ~0.6km).], and,
a computer program product including sets of instructions, wherein the computer program product is configured, when executed on the first processing unit and on the second processing unit [Li, ¶ 0144, “The communication manager 1932 may include a 3D range component 1940 that may be configured to transmit, to the at least one second UE via an SCI-1 message in a PSCCH, one or more parameters for the at least one of the 3D zone ID associated with the first UE or the 3D communication range associated with the first UE, e.g., as described in connection with 1602 in FIG. 16”, The 3D range component is used to transmit control messages (or sidelink control information, SCI) with a neighboring UE (or aircraft). Fig. 8 shows visually in-range vs. out-of-range for aircraft, where aircraft 802/804 would determine to transmit an ACK (see fig. 14, steps 1414-1418) and aircraft 806 would determine to transmit NACK (see fig. 14, steps 1414-1418). See also ¶ 0087.], to cause the communication system to establish a communication link between the first and second flying aircraft [Li, ¶ 0073, “Accordingly, sidelink relays or repeaters may be utilized (over a PC5 interface) for coverage extension”, Fig. 14 determines whether the two aircraft are within range, through the use of the ranging component in each aircraft. An ACK message presumably indicates that a communication session may set up (or established). The sidelink communications (A2A via pc5) provide communication between aircraft.].
Li et al. do not explicitly teach when a distance between the first and second flying aircraft is less than 1000 meters.
However, in an analogous art, Stein et al. teach cause the communication system to establish a communication link between the first and second flying aircraft [Stein, ¶ 0035, “the drone 105 may broadcast a collision alert so that other aircraft 110 and/or ground-based air traffic controllers are aware of the position, velocity, and/or heading of the drone 105 and thereby avoid approaching or colliding with drone 105. For example, the collision alert may include, consist essentially of, or consist of an automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) transmission and/or a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) transmission. As shown in FIG. 3, the collision alert may alert aircraft 300 within airspace 110 to the presence of drone 105 and enable the aircraft 300 to avoid approaching or colliding therewith”, A drone (see fig. 3, element 105) may conduct direct (or sidelink or A2A) communications with an aircraft. The drone may implement TCAS collision avoidance by sending collision alert signalling based on a range. The range may be a predetermined distance (see ¶ 0038). The collision alert may be generated based on speed and position of the aircraft (see ¶ 0042). Fig. 6 shows structure used for implementing communication and ranging (see ¶s 0047-0050). Paragraph [0014] further discloses the use of multiple distance thresholds for generating collision based messaging.], when a distance between the first and second flying aircraft is less than 1000 meters [Stein, ¶ 0043, “For example, the drone may communicate on a 2.4 GHz frequency and/or another cellular communications frequency, which typically has a range limited to under two miles, in order to avoid congestion of other radio frequencies”, Collision based messaging has a maximum range of 2 miles (or ~3,200 meters), which overlaps the claimed range.].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the alert-based ranging of Stein et al. into Li et al. One would have been motivated to do this because adopting range-based detection and range-based TCAS signaling from an UAV (as taught by Stein et al.) into aircraft based sidelink communications established based on distance (as taught by Li et al.) would impart range alerts to neighboring aircraft (see Stein, ¶s 0012 and 0036) with a reasonable expectation of success.
The examiner notes that the claim explicitly states that the distance between the first and second flying aircraft is less than 1,000 meters. Stein et al. discloses a range of less than 2 miles (or ~3,200 meters). MPEP § 2144.05(I) states, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).” In essence, the combination of Li et al. and Stein et al. (see ¶ 0043) will operate for distances less than ~3,200 meters (and if different flight levels are taken into account, as taught by Li et al. ¶ 0073, then 600 meters). The range outlined by Stein et al. overlaps the claimed range and the range outlined by Li et al. lies inside the claimed range. A review of the specification finds no criticality to the claimed ranges (see also claim 7) nor does the specification show any unexpected results. Therefore, the examiner finds the claimed range(s) to be obvious over the combination of Li et al. in view of Stein et al. Any response from the applicant should follow MPEP § 2144.05(III)(A).
As per claim 2, Li et al. in view of Stein et al. teach the communication system of claim 1. Li et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the computer program product is further configured to cause the communication system to determine a position of the first communication node relative to the second communication node.
However, in an analogous art, Stein et al. teach wherein the computer program product is further configured to cause the communication system to determine a position of the first communication node relative to the second communication node [Stein, ¶ 0039, “In various embodiments of the invention, the drone 105 monitors the positions of aircraft within the airspace 110 and initiates one or more of various actions based on the position of an aircraft and/or the distance between an aircraft and the drone 105 even if, for example, the drone 105 is being otherwise safely operated within its designated flight zone 120”, The UAV may determine the position of the aircraft relative to its own position. Fig. 6 shows structure used for implementing communication and ranging (see ¶s 0047-0050).].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the alert-based ranging of Stein et al. into Li et al. One would have been motivated to do this because adopting range-based detection and range-based TCAS signaling from an UAV (as taught by Stein et al.) into aircraft based sidelink communications established based on distance (as taught by Li et al.) would impart range alerts to neighboring aircraft (see Stein, ¶s 0012 and 0036) with a reasonable expectation of success.
As per claim 3, Li et al. in view of Stein et al. teach the communication system of claim 1. Li et al. also teach wherein the computer program product includes further sets of instructions allowing a secure transfer of data to an aircraft control domain system [Li, ¶ 0003, “An example telecommunication standard is 5G New Radio (NR). 5G NR is part of a continuous mobile broadband evolution promulgated by Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) to meet new requirements associated with latency, reliability, security, scalability (e.g., with Internet of Things (IoT)), and other requirements”, The protocols used for the A2A communications include security features (see also ¶s 0059 and 0063).].
As per claim 4, Li et al. in view of Stein et al. teach the communication system of claim 1. Li et al. also teach wherein the communication system utilizes an ultra-wide band (UWB) technology [Li, ¶ 0040, “Certain UEs 104 may communicate with each other using device-to-device (D2D) communication link 158. The D2D communication link 158 may use the DL/UL WWAN spectrum. The D2D communication link 158 may use one or more sidelink channels, such as a physical sidelink broadcast channel (PSBCH), a physical sidelink discovery channel (PSDCH), a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH), and a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH). D2D communication may be through a variety of wireless D2D communications systems, such as for example, WiMedia, Bluetooth, ZigBee, Wi-Fi based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronic s Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standard, LTE, or NR”, Bluetooth and Zigbee are considered UWB technologies.].
As per claim 5, Li et al. in view of Stein et al. teach the communication system of claim 1. Li et al. also teach wherein the communication system uses utilizes a cellular network [Li, ¶ 0040, “Certain UEs 104 may communicate with each other using device-to-device (D2D) communication link 158. The D2D communication link 158 may use the DL/UL WWAN spectrum. The D2D communication link 158 may use one or more sidelink channels, such as a physical sidelink broadcast channel (PSBCH), a physical sidelink discovery channel (PSDCH), a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH), and a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH). D2D communication may be through a variety of wireless D2D communications systems, such as for example, WiMedia, Bluetooth, ZigBee, Wi-Fi based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronic s Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standard, LTE, or NR”, LTE and NR are cellular technologies.].
As per claim 6, Li et al. in view of Stein et al. teach the communication system of claim 1. Li et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the communication link is configured to transfer human to machine communication, machine to machine communication, or both.
However, in an analogous art, Stein et al. teach wherein the communication link is configured to transfer human to machine communication, machine to machine communication, or both [Stein, ¶ 0035, “the drone 105 may broadcast a collision alert so that other aircraft 110 and/or ground-based air traffic controllers are aware of the position, velocity, and/or heading of the drone 105 and thereby avoid approaching or colliding with drone 105. For example, the collision alert may include, consist essentially of, or consist of an automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) transmission and/or a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) transmission. As shown in FIG. 3, the collision alert may alert aircraft 300 within airspace 110 to the presence of drone 105 and enable the aircraft 300 to avoid approaching or colliding therewith”, The collision alert functions as machine-to-machine and machine-to-human.].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the alert-based ranging of Stein et al. into Li et al. One would have been motivated to do this because adopting range-based detection and range-based TCAS signaling from an UAV (as taught by Stein et al.) into aircraft based sidelink communications established based on distance (as taught by Li et al.) would impart range alerts to neighboring aircraft (see Stein, ¶s 0012 and 0036) with a reasonable expectation of success.
As per claim 7, Li et al. in view of Stein et al. teach the communication system of claim 1. Lie et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the communication link between the first and second flying aircraft is established, when the distance between the first and second flying aircraft is less than 500 meters or less than 200 meters or less than 100 meters.
However, in an analogous art, Stein et al. teach wherein the communication link between the first and second flying aircraft is established, when the distance between the first and second flying aircraft is less than 500 meters or less than 200 meters or less than 100 meters [Stein, ¶ 0043, “For example, the drone may communicate on a 2.4 GHz frequency and/or another cellular communications frequency, which typically has a range limited to under two miles, in order to avoid congestion of other radio frequencies”, Collision based messaging has a maximum range of 2 miles (or ~3,200 meters), which overlaps the claimed range.].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the alert-based ranging of Stein et al. into Li et al. One would have been motivated to do this because adopting range-based detection and range-based TCAS signaling from an UAV (as taught by Stein et al.) into aircraft based sidelink communications established based on distance (as taught by Li et al.) would impart range alerts to neighboring aircraft (see Stein, ¶s 0012 and 0036) with a reasonable expectation of success.
The examiner notes that the claim explicitly states that the distance between the first and second flying aircraft is less than 1,000 meters. Stein et al. discloses a range of less than 2 miles (or ~3,200 meters). MPEP § 2144.05(I) states, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).” In essence, the combination of Li et al. and Stein et al. (see ¶ 0043) will operate for distances less than ~3,200 meters (and if different flight levels are taken into account, as taught by Li et al. ¶ 0073, then 600 meters). The range outlined by Stein et al. overlaps the claimed range and the range outlined by Li et al. lies inside the claimed range. A review of the specification finds no criticality to the claimed ranges (see also claim 7) nor does the specification show any unexpected results. Therefore, the examiner finds the claimed range(s) to be obvious over the combination of Li et al. in view of Stein et al. Any response from the applicant should follow MPEP § 2144.05(III)(A).
As per claim 9, Li et al. teach a method of secure communication between a first and a second flying aircraft [Li, ¶ 0073, “FIG. 5 is a diagram 500 illustrating example air-to-air (A2A) sidelink communications. In NR, a sidelink based relay or repeater may help to relax the base station transmit power specification, and may help to maintain the UEs' throughput at the cell-edge. The A2A sidelink communications may also be associated with additional benefits”, Fig. 5 shows an air-to-air (A2A) communication system between flying aircraft using sidelink communications. Conceptually, this is supported by D2D communications (see ¶ 0040).], the method comprising:
activating at least one communication node of a communication system [Li, ¶ 0143, “The apparatus 1902 is a first (transmitting) UE and includes a cellular baseband processor 1904 (also referred to as a modem) coupled to a cellular RF transceiver 1922”, Fig. 19 shows a hardware implementation for a UE (see fig. 1, element 104) in a 3D ranging system for ATA (air to air) communications. The hardware implementation includes a transceiver (or communication node, see element 1922) and a processor (see element 1904). UE 104 (see fig. 1) includes aircraft, with direct link (or sidelink) communications. The 3D range component is used to determine if the other UE (or aircraft) is within sidelink range (see also ¶ 0051). The other UE is configured to provide a response, if within range (see fig. 14, steps 1406-1418 and ¶s 0100-0105).] of the first flying aircraft [Li, ¶ 0073, “Accordingly, sidelink relays or repeaters may be utilized (over a PC5 interface) for coverage extension. In a congested airspace, different aircraft may be layered in different flight levels (FLs). Adjacent FLs may be approximately 1000 feet (ft) (or 0.6 km) apart in altitude. An FL may correspond to an altitude, an altitude range, an altitude set, or a height of flight, etc. Accordingly, sidelink-based multicast may be utilized to improve reliability and throughput. In addition, cooperative sidelink-based unicast with UE cooperation may help to increase spatial diversity”, Sidelink communications between aircraft (see fig. 5) may be based on horizontal (distance, up to 10 km, see rest of ¶ 0073) and/or between vertical flight levels (FLs) which are ~0.6km).], detecting the activated communication nodes with a communication node [Li, ¶ 0143, “The apparatus 1902 is a first (transmitting) UE and includes a cellular baseband processor 1904 (also referred to as a modem) coupled to a cellular RF transceiver 1922”, Fig. 19 shows a hardware implementation for a UE (see fig. 1, element 104) in a 3D ranging system for ATA (air to air) communications. The hardware implementation includes a transceiver (or communication node, see element 1922) and a processor (see element 1904). UE 104 (see fig. 1) includes aircraft, with direct link (or sidelink) communications. The 3D range component is used to determine if the other UE (or aircraft) is within sidelink range (see also ¶ 0051). The other UE is configured to provide a response, if within range (see fig. 14, steps 1406-1418 and ¶s 0100-0105).] at the second flying aircraft [Li, ¶ 0073, “Accordingly, sidelink relays or repeaters may be utilized (over a PC5 interface) for coverage extension. In a congested airspace, different aircraft may be layered in different flight levels (FLs). Adjacent FLs may be approximately 1000 feet (ft) (or 0.6 km) apart in altitude. An FL may correspond to an altitude, an altitude range, an altitude set, or a height of flight, etc. Accordingly, sidelink-based multicast may be utilized to improve reliability and throughput. In addition, cooperative sidelink-based unicast with UE cooperation may help to increase spatial diversity”, Sidelink communications between aircraft (see fig. 5) may be based on horizontal (distance, up to 10 km, see rest of ¶ 0073) and/or between vertical flight levels (FLs) which are ~0.6km).], determining a distance between the first and the second flying aircraft, establishing…a communication link between the communication nodes of the first and second flying aircraft [Li, ¶ 0143, “The apparatus 1902 is a first (transmitting) UE and includes a cellular baseband processor 1904 (also referred to as a modem) coupled to a cellular RF transceiver 1922”, Fig. 19 shows a hardware implementation for a UE (see fig. 1, element 104) in a 3D ranging system for ATA (air to air) communications. The hardware implementation includes a transceiver (or communication node, see element 1922) and a processor (see element 1904). UE 104 (see fig. 1) includes aircraft, with direct link (or sidelink) communications. The 3D range component is used to determine if the other UE (or aircraft) is within sidelink range (see also ¶ 0051). The other UE is configured to provide a response, if within range (see fig. 14, steps 1406-1418 and ¶s 0100-0105).].
Li et al. do not explicitly teach determining a distance between the first and the second flying aircraft, establishing, when the distance between the first and the second flying aircraft is less than 1000 meters, a communication link between the communication nodes of the first and second flying aircraft.
However, in an analogous art, Stein et al. teach determining a distance between the first and the second flying aircraft [Stein, ¶ 0035, “the drone 105 may broadcast a collision alert so that other aircraft 110 and/or ground-based air traffic controllers are aware of the position, velocity, and/or heading of the drone 105 and thereby avoid approaching or colliding with drone 105. For example, the collision alert may include, consist essentially of, or consist of an automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) transmission and/or a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) transmission. As shown in FIG. 3, the collision alert may alert aircraft 300 within airspace 110 to the presence of drone 105 and enable the aircraft 300 to avoid approaching or colliding therewith”, A drone (see fig. 3, element 105) may conduct direct (or sidelink or A2A) communications with an aircraft. The drone may implement TCAS collision avoidance by sending collision alert signalling based on a range. The range may be a predetermined distance (see ¶ 0038). The collision alert may be generated based on speed and position of the aircraft (see ¶ 0042). Fig. 6 shows structure used for implementing communication and ranging (see ¶s 0047-0050). Paragraph [0014] further discloses the use of multiple distance thresholds for generating collision based messaging.], establishing, when the distance between the first and the second flying aircraft is less than 1000 meters [Stein, ¶ 0043, “For example, the drone may communicate on a 2.4 GHz frequency and/or another cellular communications frequency, which typically has a range limited to under two miles, in order to avoid congestion of other radio frequencies”, Collision based messaging has a maximum range of 2 miles (or ~3,200 meters), which overlaps the claimed range.], a communication link between the communication nodes of the first and second flying aircraft [Stein, ¶ 0035, “the drone 105 may broadcast a collision alert so that other aircraft 110 and/or ground-based air traffic controllers are aware of the position, velocity, and/or heading of the drone 105 and thereby avoid approaching or colliding with drone 105. For example, the collision alert may include, consist essentially of, or consist of an automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) transmission and/or a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) transmission. As shown in FIG. 3, the collision alert may alert aircraft 300 within airspace 110 to the presence of drone 105 and enable the aircraft 300 to avoid approaching or colliding therewith”, A drone (see fig. 3, element 105) may conduct direct (or sidelink or A2A) communications with an aircraft. The drone may implement TCAS collision avoidance by sending collision alert signalling based on a range. The range may be a predetermined distance (see ¶ 0038). The collision alert may be generated based on speed and position of the aircraft (see ¶ 0042). Fig. 6 shows structure used for implementing communication and ranging (see ¶s 0047-0050). Paragraph [0014] further discloses the use of multiple distance thresholds for generating collision based messaging.], when a distance between the first and second flying aircraft is less than 1000 meters [Stein, ¶ 0043, “For example, the drone may communicate on a 2.4 GHz frequency and/or another cellular communications frequency, which typically has a range limited to under two miles, in order to avoid congestion of other radio frequencies”, Collision based messaging has a maximum range of 2 miles (or ~3,200 meters), which overlaps the claimed range.].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the alert-based ranging of Stein et al. into Li et al. One would have been motivated to do this because adopting range-based detection and range-based TCAS signaling from an UAV (as taught by Stein et al.) into aircraft based sidelink communications established based on distance (as taught by Li et al.) would impart range alerts to neighboring aircraft (see Stein, ¶s 0012 and 0036) with a reasonable expectation of success.
The examiner notes that the claim explicitly states that the distance between the first and second flying aircraft is less than 1,000 meters. Stein et al. discloses a range of less than 2 miles (or ~3,200 meters). MPEP § 2144.05(I) states, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).” In essence, the combination of Li et al. and Stein et al. (see ¶ 0043) will operate for distances less than ~3,200 meters (and if different flight levels are taken into account, as taught by Li et al. ¶ 0073, then 600 meters). The range outlined by Stein et al. overlaps the claimed range and the range outlined by Li et al. lies inside the claimed range. A review of the specification finds no criticality to the claimed ranges (see also claim 7) nor does the specification show any unexpected results. Therefore, the examiner finds the claimed range(s) to be obvious over the combination of Li et al. in view of Stein et al. Any response from the applicant should follow MPEP § 2144.05(III)(A).
As per claim 10, Li et al. in view of Stein et al. teach the method of claim 9. Li et al. also teach further comprising: verifying that the communication link is configured to be established [Li, ¶ 0073, “Accordingly, sidelink relays or repeaters may be utilized (over a PC5 interface) for coverage extension”, Fig. 14 determines whether the two aircraft are within range, through the use of the ranging component in each aircraft. An ACK message presumably indicates that a communication session may set up (or established). The sidelink communications (A2A via pc5) provide communication between aircraft.].
As per claim 11, Li et al. in view of Stein et al. teach the method of claim 9. Li et al. also teach wherein the communication link is established based on a security protocol [Li, ¶ 0003, “An example telecommunication standard is 5G New Radio (NR). 5G NR is part of a continuous mobile broadband evolution promulgated by Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) to meet new requirements associated with latency, reliability, security, scalability (e.g., with Internet of Things (IoT)), and other requirements”, The protocols used for the A2A communications include security features (see also ¶s 0059 and 0063).].
As per claim 12, Li et al. in view of Stein et al. teach the method of claim 9. Li et al. do not explicitly teach further comprising: transferring human to machine commands, machine to machine commands, or both from one of the first and the second flying aircraft to the other of the first and the second flying aircraft for controlling flight operation of the other of the first and the second flying aircraft.
However, in an analogous art, Stein et al. teach transferring human to machine commands, machine to machine commands, or both from one of the first and the second flying aircraft to the other of the first and the second flying aircraft for controlling flight operation of the other of the first and the second flying aircraft [Stein, ¶ 0035, “the drone 105 may broadcast a collision alert so that other aircraft 110 and/or ground-based air traffic controllers are aware of the position, velocity, and/or heading of the drone 105 and thereby avoid approaching or colliding with drone 105. For example, the collision alert may include, consist essentially of, or consist of an automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) transmission and/or a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) transmission. As shown in FIG. 3, the collision alert may alert aircraft 300 within airspace 110 to the presence of drone 105 and enable the aircraft 300 to avoid approaching or colliding therewith”, The collision alert message functions as machine-to-machine or human-to-machine. The intent of the message is to include collision avoidance information.].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the alert-based ranging of Stein et al. into Li et al. One would have been motivated to do this because adopting range-based detection and range-based TCAS signaling from an UAV (as taught by Stein et al.) into aircraft based sidelink communications established based on distance (as taught by Li et al.) would impart range alerts to neighboring aircraft (see Stein, ¶s 0012 and 0036) with a reasonable expectation of success.
As per claim 13, Li et al. teach an aircraft comprising:
a communication system for secure communication between flying aircraft [Li, ¶ 0073, “FIG. 5 is a diagram 500 illustrating example air-to-air (A2A) sidelink communications. In NR, a sidelink based relay or repeater may help to relax the base station transmit power specification, and may help to maintain the UEs' throughput at the cell-edge. The A2A sidelink communications may also be associated with additional benefits”, Fig. 5 shows an air-to-air (A2A) communication system between flying aircraft using sidelink communications. Conceptually, this is supported by D2D communications (see ¶ 0040).], the communication system comprising a communication node and a processing unit [Li, ¶ 0143, “The apparatus 1902 is a first (transmitting) UE and includes a cellular baseband processor 1904 (also referred to as a modem) coupled to a cellular RF transceiver 1922”, Fig. 19 shows a hardware implementation for a UE (see fig. 1, element 104) in a 3D ranging system for ATA (air to air) communications. The hardware implementation includes a transceiver (or communication node, see element 1922) and a processor (see element 1904). UE 104 (see fig. 1) includes aircraft, with direct link (or sidelink) communications. The 3D range component is used to determine if the other UE (or aircraft) is within sidelink range (see also ¶ 0051). The other UE is configured to provide a response, if within range (see fig. 14, steps 1406-1418 and ¶s 0100-0105).],
wherein a computer program product including sets of instructions is configured to be executed on the processing unit [Li, ¶ 0144, “The communication manager 1932 may include a 3D range component 1940 that may be configured to transmit, to the at least one second UE via an SCI-1 message in a PSCCH, one or more parameters for the at least one of the 3D zone ID associated with the first UE or the 3D communication range associated with the first UE, e.g., as described in connection with 1602 in FIG. 16”, The 3D range component is used to transmit control messages (or sidelink control information, SCI) with a neighboring UE (or aircraft). Fig. 8 shows visually in-range vs. out-of-range for aircraft, where aircraft 802/804 would determine to transmit an ACK (see fig. 14, steps 1414-1418) and aircraft 806 would determine to transmit NACK (see fig. 14, steps 1414-1418). See also ¶ 0087.] to cause the communication system to establish a communication link between the aircraft and a second aircraft [Li, ¶ 0073, “Accordingly, sidelink relays or repeaters may be utilized (over a PC5 interface) for coverage extension”, Fig. 14 determines whether the two aircraft are within range, through the use of the ranging component in each aircraft. An ACK message presumably indicates that a communication session may set up (or established). The sidelink communications (A2A via pc5) provide communication between aircraft.].
Li et al. do not explicitly teach when a distance between the aircraft and the second aircraft during flight is less than 1000 meters.
However, in an analogous art, Stein et al. teach cause the communication system to establish a communication link between the aircraft and a second aircraft [Stein, ¶ 0035, “the drone 105 may broadcast a collision alert so that other aircraft 110 and/or ground-based air traffic controllers are aware of the position, velocity, and/or heading of the drone 105 and thereby avoid approaching or colliding with drone 105. For example, the collision alert may include, consist essentially of, or consist of an automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) transmission and/or a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) transmission. As shown in FIG. 3, the collision alert may alert aircraft 300 within airspace 110 to the presence of drone 105 and enable the aircraft 300 to avoid approaching or colliding therewith”, A drone (see fig. 3, element 105) may conduct direct (or sidelink or A2A) communications with an aircraft. The drone may implement TCAS collision avoidance by sending collision alert signalling based on a range. The range may be a predetermined distance (see ¶ 0038). The collision alert may be generated based on speed and position of the aircraft (see ¶ 0042). Fig. 6 shows structure used for implementing communication and ranging (see ¶s 0047-0050). Paragraph [0014] further discloses the use of multiple distance thresholds for generating collision based messaging.], when a distance between the first and second flying aircraft is less than 1000 meters [Stein, ¶ 0043, “For example, the drone may communicate on a 2.4 GHz frequency and/or another cellular communications frequency, which typically has a range limited to under two miles, in order to avoid congestion of other radio frequencies”, Collision based messaging has a maximum range of 2 miles (or ~3,200 meters), which overlaps the claimed range.].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the alert-based ranging of Stein et al. into Li et al. One would have been motivated to do this because adopting range-based detection and range-based TCAS signaling from an UAV (as taught by Stein et al.) into aircraft based sidelink communications established based on distance (as taught by Li et al.) would impart range alerts to neighboring aircraft (see Stein, ¶s 0012 and 0036) with a reasonable expectation of success.
The examiner notes that the claim explicitly states that the distance between the first and second flying aircraft is less than 1,000 meters. Stein et al. discloses a range of less than 2 miles (or ~3,200 meters). MPEP § 2144.05(I) states, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).” In essence, the combination of Li et al. and Stein et al. (see ¶ 0043) will operate for distances less than ~3,200 meters (and if different flight levels are taken into account, as taught by Li et al. ¶ 0073, then 600 meters). The range outlined by Stein et al. overlaps the claimed range and the range outlined by Li et al. lies inside the claimed range. A review of the specification finds no criticality to the claimed ranges (see also claim 7) nor does the specification show any unexpected results. Therefore, the examiner finds the claimed range(s) to be obvious over the combination of Li et al. in view of Stein et al. Any response from the applicant should follow MPEP § 2144.05(III)(A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US PG Pub 2024/0129934) in view of Stein et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0250084, cited on IDS dated 3/8/24) and Frolov et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0106518).
As per claim 8, Li et al. in view of Stein et al. teach the communication system of claim 1. Li et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the communication link is configured to transfer commands for adjusting parameters of an auto pilot system.
However, in an analogous art, Frolov et al. teach wherein the communication link is configured to transfer commands for adjusting parameters of an auto pilot system [Frolov, ¶ 0034, “The control channel subsystem 622 can be used for exchanging control data between different ATPs within a same fleet”, The ACP platform (see fig. 6) includes an autopilot system (see element 607) and a control channel subsystem for Air-to-Air communications (see elements 622 and 625). The control data exchanged between airplanes in an ACP fleet (see fig. 5) includes location and timing information, which amounts to sensor data (see element 606, where each aircraft in the ACP exchanges this information) that an autopilot would rely upon for operation.].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt the control data exchange operations of the airborne communication platform of Frolov et al. into the combination of Li et al. and Stein et al. One would have been motivated to do this because an autopilot is a common feature within commercial aircraft and exchanging sensor data via air-to-air communications between aircraft would improve its operation for collision avoidance with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference, Miller et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0043369), teaches exchanging critical flight information between aircraft (see at least fig. 7, element 750).
The reference, Li et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0372807), teaches exchanging critical flight information between aircraft (see at least fig. 7, element 750).
The reference, O’Connor et al. (US PG Pub 2012/0214420), teaches an aircraft communication system (see at least fig. 1).
The reference, Jamalipour et al. (US PG Pub 20090092074), teaches aircraft network layer communications (see at least fig. 2, element 201).
The reference, Megas et al. (NPL, see PTO-892), teaches communication link and network modeling for A2AC links (see sections 3.1 and 3.2).
The reference, Baltaci et al. (NPL, see PTO-892), teaches A2A communication (see section III.D).
The reference, Hofmann et al. (NPL, see PTO-892), teaches communication link and network modeling for A2AC links (see sections II.A and II.B).
The reference, Vengadesh et al. (NPL, see PTO-892), teaches A2AComm display information (see at least Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul H. Masur whose telephone number is (571)270-7297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 4:30 AM to 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Song can be reached at (571) 270-3667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Paul H. Masur/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2417